Re: vectorized fsyncv(2) syscall -- useful?

DL> Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:37:03 +0100
DL> From: David Laight
DL> > A context switch per syscall.
DL>
DL> There is unlikely to be a full context switch. Provided the process
DL> isn't pre-empted syscalls are relatively cheap (except on ARM).
Then I was recalling dated/erroneous information. Thanks.
[ snip EBD citation of readv(2) and writev(2) ]
DL> One purpose of these calls is that they are atomic (or, at least, as
DL> atomic a single read/write) - this can be important.
True.
DL> There is no reason to complicate the syscall interface any further!
DL> I'd guess that any apparant gains are overwhelmed by the additional
DL> complexity.
Or that any additional complexity is underwhelmed by the apparent gains.
;-)
Thanks again to you and Bill for the feedback and insight.
Eddy
--
Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/0xebd
________________________________________________________________________
DO NOT send mail to the following addresses:
davidc%brics.com@localhost -*- jfconmaapaq%intc.net@localhost -*-
sam%everquick.net@localhost
Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.